United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
LINWOOD F. EDDLETON, JR., Petitioner,
HAROLD W. CLARKE,  Respondent.
JAMES R. SPENCER, Senior District Judge.
Linwood F. Eddleton, Jr., a Virginia state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("§ 2254 Petition") challenging his convictions in the Circuit Court of the County of Henrico, Virginia ("Circuit Court"). Respondent moves to dismiss, inter alia, on the ground that the one-year statute of limitations governing federal habeas petitions bars the § 2254 Petition. Despite sending appropriate Roseboro  notice with the Motion to Dismiss, Eddleton has not responded. The matter is ripe for disposition.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
After a bench trial, the Circuit Court found Eddleton guilty of grand larceny, statutory burglary, and possession of a firearm by a violent convicted felon. On August 7, 2006, the Circuit Court entered final judgment with respect to the above convictions and sentenced Eddleton to an active sentence of nine years in prison. Commonwealth v. Eddleton, Nos. CR06-146 through -148, at 1-2 (Va. Cir. Ct. Aug. 7, 2006). Eddleton appealed his convictions. On September 10, 2007, the Supreme Court of Virginia refused Eddleton's petition for appeal. Eddleton v. Commonwealth, No. 070395, at 1 (Va. Sept. 10, 2007).
On September 9, 2008, Eddleton filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the Supreme Court of Virginia. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus at 1, Eddleton v. Dir. of the Dep't of Corr., No. 081880 (Va. filed Sept. 9, 2008). On March 19, 2009, the Supreme Court of Virginia denied the petition on the merits. Eddleton v. Dir. of the Dep't of Corr., No. 081880, at 1-3 (Va. Mar. 19, 2009).
On June 4, 2009, Eddleton timely filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition in this Court ("First § 2254 Petition"). By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered April 25, 2011, the Court granted Eddleton's motion to voluntarily dismiss the action. Eddleton v. Johnson, No. 3:09CV352, at 1 (E.D. Va. Apr. 25, 2011).
On December 5, 2013, Eddleton filed the instant § 2254 Petition with this Court. In his § 2254 Petition, Eddleton asserts:
Claim One "Petitioner was denied the due process of law when the prosecution (1) failed to disclose and did suppress impeachment evidence and (2) knowingly used perjured testimony..." (§ 2254 Pet. 5.)
Claim Two Trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance because he "failed to file a pretrial motion to suppress... incriminating statements" and "failed to request [a] pretrial evidentiary hearing...." ( Id. at 6.)
Claim Three Trial counsel "failed to consult with petitioner regarding trial strategy, failed to discuss with petitioner any plea option, and failed to purse any plea negotiations...." ( Id. at 8.)
Claim Four "Petitioner was denied due process because the prosecution knowingly suppressed impeachment evidence... and knowingly used perjured testimony...." ( Id. at 9.)
A. Statute of Limitations
Respondent contends that the federal statute of limitations bars Eddleton's claims. Section 101 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA") amended 28 U.S.C. § 2244 to establish a one-year period of limitation for the filing of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody ...